JOHN COFFELTContributor

Following a recent order by an administrate judge that upheld an aquatic alteration permit related to Old Stone Fort bridge replacement, Coffee County Mayor Dennis Hunt suggested over the weekend using county tourism money to further the legal efforts.  

“I fully support using money in our tourism fund balance to obtain restraining/appeal legal efforts, if our Budget and Finance Committee and the Full Commission will approve it,” Hunt said on a comment on the Manchester Times’ story. “(I) can’t think of a better use of these restricted funds at this time. Representative (Rush) Bricken brought this idea to my attention. He and Senator Janice Bowling are two elected officials that have listened.”

The challenge by the Old Stone Fort Bridge Preservation group did not challenge the state replacement of the Old Stone Fort Bridge, rather was a challenge to an aquatic water resources alteration permit (ARAP). The case was rejected by the Department of State Administrative Procedures Division on Thursday, Aug. 21, saying that group’s experts based their evidence on “conclusory generalizations” and “incorrect facts.”

The Department of State Administrative Procedures Division’s order found that TDEC did not violate the Water Quality Control Act of 1977 in granting the ARAP for replacement of the Campground Lane Bridge over the Duck River within the Old Stone Fort State Archeological Park.

Administrative Judge Elizabeth Cambron wrote in the order that “Based on the evidence presented in the case, it is determined … the Old Stone Fort Bridge Preservation Group (OSFB Preservation Group), failed to meet its burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that TDEC violated the Act or the regulations in granting this permit.”

Accordingly, TDEC’s decision to issue the permit is upheld.

The case brought by OSFB Preservation Group Attorney Jason Holleman presented May 15, 16, and 19 before Cambron challenged the permit by alleging that that the work authorized by the permit constitutes more than de minimis (minimal) degradation, and that TDEC failed to consider practicable alternatives to replacing the Campground Lane Bridge.

“OSFB Preservation Group failed to meet its burden of proof as to both of its assertions,” the order states.

“Further, the weight of (OSFB Preservation Group ARAP expert) Sulkin’s testimony is significantly undercut by his reliance on incorrect facts. He believed that the determination of de minimis degradation depends on the quality of the waters that will be impacted and that the permit authorized TDOT to draw down the river using the nearby Old Mill Dam, both of which are incorrect,” the order states. 

The order asserts that OSFB Preservation Group offered no proof other than the testimony of its expert Barry Sulkin in support of its assertion that any of the temporary impacts are of more than a short duration.  That testimony, the order said, offers, “little more than conclusory generalizations and provides no support for OSFB Preservation Group’s assertion” as to the temporary impacts.

The only permanent impacts authorized are the placement of 133 feet of rip rap and the replacement of the current four-pier bridge with a two-pier bridge. The 133 feet of rip rap authorized by the permit could have been authorized by either of two existing general permits that allow for 200 feet of rip rap. Thus, this permit was not necessary in order to authorize the placement of the proposed rip rap.

“More importantly, however, Mr. Sulkin, OSFB Preservation Group’s expert, offered little more than conclusory assertions that the permit authorized more than de minimis degradation,” the order states. 

“He also relied on possibilities that, if they occurred, would be a violation of the permit, such as the release of muddy water or debris from the construction area. These concerns are specifically addressed by the special conditions required by the permit.”

‘Refurbish not practical’ 

The order also rejected the OSFB Preservation Group’s proposal for bridge refurbishment as an unfeasible alternative.

The order said the proposal does not meet the project’s purpose because it is not possible to meet current TDOT design standards by refurbishing the bridge. Nor is it practical to expect a bridge that is over 100 years old to have a service life much further into the future, particularly given the weight of modern vehicular traffic compared to the weight of vehicles at the time the bridge was built.

Additionally, as explained by Ted Kniazewycz, State Bridge Engineer for the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) and TDEC’s expert in bridge engineering, a truss bridge works as a system.

One cannot isolate and refurbish parts of the bridge and declare the rest of the bridge as fine, as was proposed by the OSFB Preservation Group’s Bridge Restoration Consultant Daniel Kurdziel.

The order reads that “If there is a failure of any one part, it can take the bridge out of service or cause it to collapse. Given this, Mr. Kurdziel’s testimony that the bridge could have a life expectancy of another one hundred years is not credible.”

The order also asserts that OSFB Preservation Group’s proposal is not a practicable alternative because the bridge would still have a posted weight limit.

When the bridge was still in use for vehicles, it had a posted weight limit, which was likely not followed, leading to the damage of the bridge and ultimately its closure. Refurbishing the bridge would only recreate that situation.

Thus, it ruled, OSFB Preservation Group’s proposal to refurbish the bridge is not a practicable alternative, and TDEC was not required to consider it in issuing the permit.

According to the order, three witnesses testified on behalf of OSFB Preservation Group: Sulkin, Kurdziel and Sarah Bradley, the group’s party representative.

Three witnesses testified on behalf of TDEC: Kniazewycz, Eddie Gordon, Program Manager for the Natural Resources Unit of TDEC and TDEC’s expert in ARAP permitting and antidegradation regarding this permit; Keith Wimberly, Manager of the Old Stone Fort State Archeological Park. Twenty-one exhibits were entered into evidence.

According to the order, the permit authorizes a number of temporary impacts that will only exist during the construction of the new bridge and the relocation of the portion of the current bridge as an overlook. TDEC consistently treats temporary impacts associated with construction as being of a short duration. Furthermore, if a temporary impact created a long-term negative impact that would violate the permit.

The Times has reached out to Hunt for clarification of his comments. The OSFB Preservation Group and their attorney have been contacted for comments. No response was available by press time. Comments, if submitted, will be added to the online story. On Aug. 22, TDEC said it is reviewing the order. The Administrative Judge’s decision is an Initial Order but shall become a Final Order unless Petition for Reconsideration of the Initial Order, a board review or an appeal is filed.

The deadline for an appeal is Sept. 22, 2025.